SHARE
China has experienced rapid economic growth since 1978, when it adopted a policy of opening up to the world and instituting economic reform. It has become the second largest economy measured by the country’s GDP, and its tax revenue has experienced an average annual growth of about 20 percent since the fiscal reform of 1994.
However, many subnational governments in China have experienced fiscal stress and incurred large local debt in recent years because of numerous unfunded central mandates and the large fiscal gap between expenditure responsibilities and revenue capacity. For example, in 2008 subnational government in China accounted for 79 percent of total government expenditure, but only 47 percent of total government revenues (Man 2011).
Unlike many developed countries, China’s local governments (provincial, prefecture, county, and township) have not been granted any legal authority for taxing or borrowing, and the property tax plays a very limited role in the local public finance structure. As a result, many local governments turn to extra-budgetary revenue sources, fees for leasing land use rights, other fees and surcharges, and indirect borrowing from banks to finance infrastructure investment and local economic development.
During the period from 1991 to 2008, the land leasing fees (also known as land transfer fees) increased from 5.7 percent of total local budgetary revenue to 43.5 percent. The overreliance on land leasing fees has been criticized as an important factor in pushing up housing prices and in the growth of corruption cases and land disputes in China.
Problems with the Current Tax System
The current land and property tax system in China generates a limited amount of tax revenue, even though five types of taxes are levied on land-related property at various stages of production (table 1). Local governments collect the Farmland Occupation Tax and Land Value Added Tax (LVAT) at the stage of land acquisition and transaction. At the possession stage, the Urban Land Use Tax and Real Estate Tax are collected, while the Deed Tax is levied when the ownership of the property is transferred.
This tax system has many problems and warrants structural reform. First, various taxes on land and property account for only 15.7 percent of local tax revenues. It is an unstable and inadequate revenue source for the Chinese local governments. Local government officials have relied upon other revenues sources, including leasing state-owned land for a large lump-sum fee from developers, to finance infrastructure development and capital projects. In 2010, Chinese local governments collected 2.7 trillion RMB from land leasing fees in addition to 8.3 trillion RMB in taxes and other budgetary revenues. The ratio of leasing fees to tax revenue was 32.5 percent, compared to 4.5 percent in 1999.
Second, China’s current property tax structure focuses more tax burden at the transaction stage than the possession stage. For example, revenues collected from the annual urban land use tax and the real estate tax at the possession stage accounted for only 6.44 percent of local tax revenues in 2008, while about 9.25 percent of local tax revenue was raised at the land development and property transaction stages.
Third, owner-occupied residential property was not included in the tax base for the current real estate tax, thus significantly restricting the government’s ability to capture value from the booming housing market that was fueled by the privatization of public housing, income growth, and massive urban infrastructure investment. By 2010, homeownership rates reached 84.3 percent of the formal urban housing stock, and housing values have experienced substantial increases in the past five years in many big cities (Man, Zheng, and Ren 2011). But the exclusion of the residential properties from real estate tax has resulted in wealth disparity and excessive demand for housing for investment and speculative purpose, raising vacancy rates in many coastal cities.
Finally, unlike the property tax system in many developed countries, the real estate tax in China is not levied on the assessed value of the property. Instead, it is based on the original price minus 10 to 30 percent of depreciation at a rate of 1.2 percent or levied at 15 percent of the actual rental income for leasing property. Government officials have little experience in the mass appraisal of the market value of existing property, a fundamental skill for establishing a modern property tax system.
Recent Developments in Property Tax Reform
The Chinese central government has been exploring the possibility of reforming its current land and property tax system since 2003, when it first officially proposed to establish a modern property taxation system. Six cities were selected to con-duct pilot projects in 2006, and that number was expanded to 10 cities a year later.
In 2010 the State Administration of Taxation (SAT), which is in charge of this pilot project, ordered that every province must choose at least one city to experiment with property value assessment in order to verify the housing sales price self-reported by home purchasers for the deed tax. These experiments have played an important role in the technical and information-based preparation of mass appraisal for future property value assessment. On January 28, 2011, the cities of Shanghai and Chongqing were permitted to collect property taxes on newly purchased second homes or luxury residential property, respectively.
Major Achievements
China’s property tax reform aims to establish a system to tax the existing property (including both land and housing structures) based upon its assessed value on an annual basis to make the tax a significant revenue source for local governments. This system will utilize various assessment methods such as market comparison, cost, and income approaches and will be applied to business and industrial property as well as residential property, including owner-occupied housing.
Different versions of computer-assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) have been studied and subsequently implemented by some pilot cities, such as Hangzhou, Dandong, and Chongqing. The SAT has been training officials from local tax bureaus in every province about CAMA system development and its applications. It has also tried to establish technology standards for each assessment approach.
In 2005, the SAT compiled a Real Property Assessment Valuation Regulation Trial that specified 12 chapters and 40 provisions covering data collection, standards, and the CAMA system. All the pilot cities have finished the simulation assessment and have calculated the tax burden and tax revenue according to different tax rate scenarios. In 2011 at least one city in each province had been selected to conduct property value assessment of newly purchased property for the collection of the deed tax.
The most important development occurred in early 2011, when Shanghai started to collect taxes on newly purchased second homes of residents and first homes of nonresidents based on transaction value, after the exclusion from the tax base of 60 square meters per person. The city of Chongqing is targeting the existing single-family residence and newly purchased luxury apartments of residents or newly purchased second homes of nonresidents. The program excludes 180 square meters for the single-family residences and 100 square meters for apartments in Chongqing.
About 8,000 parcels are reported to be levied a property tax in these two cities combined, although after this one-year experiment only a small amount of tax revenues has been collected, which was intended to finance low-income housing. Although the tax base, tax rate, and the collections are all very small in the two cities, these efforts represent a big step forward for property tax reform in China.
Future Challenges
China’s property tax reform still faces enormous challenges, although it is now much better understood by Chinese citizens and the media. First, it encounters resistance from various influential interest groups. The biggest opponents of a property tax are local government officials, in addition to real estate investors and speculators. Many local governments believe that the adoption of such a tax will lower housing values and consequently lower the demand for land, thereby substantially reducing the land leasing fees obtained from the leasehold of state-owned land. Furthermore, local government officials in China are evaluated on their role in spurring local GDP growth, and infrastructure investment projects are often used as a stimulus to boost local economic development. Officials want unlimited access to land leasing fees because they can be raised and spent with little scrutiny, and they can generate a large amount of revenue for use during an official’s tenure.
A second challenge is the slow progress on legal and assessment preparations for a property tax system. Property tax laws and regulations need to be established, including assessment laws and standards for assessors. Up to 100,000 assessors will have to be trained and certified to these standards. Third, consensus is still lacking with respect to the specifications of the tax base, exclusions, and exemptions; the assignment of responsibilities for administration, rate setting, and assessment; and the allocation of tax revenues. Fourth, general unfamiliarity with the property tax leads to continued misunderstanding and misperceptions about the tax.
At the same time, more urban dwellers realize that an annually collected tax on the assessed value of real property, both business and residential, can serve as an efficient and sustainable revenue source for local governments and help to reduce their reliance on land transfer fees and charges that contribute to higher house prices. Following the central government policy of house purchase restrictions and tighter monetary policy, fees from land leasing in 2011 have started to fall in many cities.
According to a recent report by the China Index Institute (2012), land transfer fees in 130 cities have decreased by 11 percent compared to 2010. In Shanghai and Beijing, they decreased by 16 and 35.7 percent, respectively. This rapid decrease may also offer opportunities for local governments to look for more sustainable ways to seek a balance between promoting economic growth and providing public goods and services. In the long run, establishing a property tax system to substitute gradually for the land transfer fees can offer an efficient, equitable, and sustainable way to finance local development and government spending.
The property tax has been perceived as an effective way to lower housing prices, dampen property speculation, and reduce vacancy rates. Many researchers believe that local governments tried to limit land supply to bid up land prices and maximize revenue, resulting in the rapid increase in housing prices and lack of affordable housing in urban China. Levying taxes on residential property can increase the opportunity cost of holding property vacant or idle and reduce incentives for speculative behavior. The tax is also viewed as an effective way to narrow the gap in income and wealth among urban residents and discourage speculative investment in the housing sector.
Conclusions
The property tax reform in China is making progress in research and in experiments with applications, and it has begun to accumulate momentum toward better understanding and acceptability among citizens and local governments. But the successful establishment of a property tax as a major revenue source in a modern local public finance system requires not only assessment techniques and tax design but also political determination and administrative reform. This reform could lead to a fundamental change in intergovernmental relations and the role of government in China’s political and economic structure.
The Lincoln Institute began to support research on property taxation in partnership with the Chinese government in 2004, in conjunction with the Development and Research Center of the State Council (DRC), Ministry of Finance (MOF), and State Administration of Taxation (SAT). In 2007 the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy (PLC) was established in Beijing, in part to help organize international conferences and training programs for government property tax officials in the pilot cities. The center continues to support international and domestic experts in conducting research and demonstration projects on property taxation and related issues.
About the Author
Joyce Yanyun Man is senior fellow and director of the China Program at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, and serves as director and professor at the Peking University-Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy at Peking University in Beijing.
References
China Index Institute. 2012. http://www.chinanews.com/estate/ 2012/01-04/3580986.shtml
Man, Joyce Yanyun. 2011. Local public finance in China: An overview. In China’s local public finance in transition, eds. Joyce Yanyun Man and Yu-Hung Hong. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Man, Joyce Yanyun, Siqi Zheng, and Rongrong Ren. 2011. Housing policy and housing markets: Trends, patterns and affordability. In China’s housing reform and outcomes, ed. Joyce Yanyun Man. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
National Bureau of Statistics. 2009. China statistical yearbook. Beijing: China Statistics Press.
SHARE
When a handful of judges and tax experts met around a table at the Lincoln Institute’s original Moley House headquarters in January 1980, they could hardly have foreseen that their one-day seminar would initiate the major educational program for the nation’s state tax judges. Over the past 30 years, the Lincoln Institute has sponsored the annual National Conference of State Tax Judges as a means of improving land-related tax policy as applied and interpreted by adjudication in tax courts and tax appeal tribunals.
Participants in the conference include members of administrative and judicial tax tribunals who hear appeals of tax assessments, denials of refund requests, or other property tax disputes on a jurisdiction-wide basis in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the cities of Chicago (Cook County) and New York.
Tax Tribunals and Effective Tax Policy
Taxation is a highly complex and emotionally charged reality in countries throughout the world. Patrick Doherty, the past president of the United Kingdom’s Institute of Revenues, Rating, and Valuation, has observed that to be acceptable, it is not sufficient or sometimes even necessary for a tax to meet an abstract standard of fairness. The essential element is that the levy “feel fair” to the taxpayer. An open, accessible, timely, and unbiased forum for appeals is crucial to this sense of fairness.
Tax tribunals play a vital role in affording aggrieved taxpayers a fair opportunity for consideration of their claims. Legislation and regulation enunciate policy at general and sometimes abstract levels. The actual application of the law to specific factual situations and disputes effectuates that policy. Tax tribunal interpretations can carry the force of law and precedent. Judicial education is an investment in sound tax policy that, by reaching a targeted and highly influential audience, can reap public benefits long into the future.
Although consideration of appeals is central to any tax system, the special nature of the property tax increases the importance of access to a fair and equitable tribunal. Unlike income taxes withheld from one’s salary or sales taxes collected as part of numerous transactions and never totaled for the taxpayer, property taxes generally require significant and highly visible periodic payments. Furthermore, the intricacies of the income tax leave most taxpayers without any intuitive sense of potential errors in its calculation. The property tax, on the other hand, is usually based on fair market value, a dollar figure that a homeowner may be able to estimate with some precision.
The property tax is primarily a local tax that engenders a greater sense of personal involvement than levies that support more distant levels of government. Not incidentally, the property tax is also the primary focus of much taxpayer discontent. It is easier to mobilize opposition to a visible local taxing body than to state or federal revenue departments. State legislators are also far more receptive to pressure to constrain local revenues than to efforts to reduce their own budgets.
At the same time, property tax disputes may involve large business enterprises owning complex structures whose valuation may raise highly theoretical or technical questions. Courts may need to determine the value of manufacturing plants that can constitute the major portion of a locality’s tax base, or of property that is part of a going concern whose sale price represents intangibles such as business good will.
The Special Challenges of Judicial Education
The importance of judicial education is matched by the challenge of presenting ongoing, impartial, and up to date instruction, especially with regard to specialized subject matter. Judges grappling with complex factual and legal issues often face a lonely task, and specialized tribunals such as tax courts can be particularly isolated. Some state tax courts have only one member.
Before the establishment of the National Conference of State Tax Judges, no national association or other formal means existed for judges in one state to confer with colleagues facing similar issues in another jurisdiction. Training in highly technical tax issues requires faculty with specialized expertise and a sophisticated understanding of sometimes arcane provisions.
At the same time, judges must be far more cautious than lawyers in private practice when they seek advice and instruction. They must avoid even the appearance of special access or private influence, particularly when dealing with specialists who may at some point serve as expert witnesses or litigants in their courtrooms. Outside the judicial realm, many educational conferences are supported by commercial sponsors with special ties to the subject matter, but in the tax area these organizations and corporations would be the most likely to have a stake in future litigation. Public funding for judicial education is rarely a legislative priority, even when budgets are relatively generous, and is among the first items to be curtailed in economic downturns.
All of these factors present special hurdles to the development of effective, ongoing educational programs for members of tax tribunals. The success of the National Conference of State Tax Judges speaks to both the effectiveness of the Lincoln Institute’s support and the enthusiastic work of judges across the country who have found it a professionally and personally rewarding means of creating ties with colleagues in other states.
The judges who volunteer to produce each year’s program are the cornerstone of the organization. The planning committee members begin monthly telephone meetings soon after the close of the previous conference so they can evaluate participant suggestions and consider topics of particular current importance. Individual judges then contact scholars and professionals who can address these issues. Faculty members include academic experts in law and economics as well as legislators, policy analysts, appraisers, journalists, and specialists in fields such as housing and commercial property markets.
The central role of the judges themselves is highlighted by a session on case law updates. One of the most lively and interactive parts of the program, this forum offers the participants an opportunity to describe and comment on recent decisions of special interest in their own states. Judges submit these cases in the months preceding the conference to the session moderators, who have responsibility for choosing the cases to be examined and guiding the discussion. Moderating a conference of judges carries special challenges of its own.
Wide Scope within a Specialized Area
The range of topics covered by the conference reflects underlying property valuation problems confronted in changing economic, social, and technological conditions. In the early years, discussions included utility properties, office complexes, and rental apartments, whereas now the focus is likely to be subsidized housing, golf courses, or nonprofit landowners. More complex methods of valuation, made possible by the introduction of computer-based techniques, have also entered the agenda. What approach to value is best suited to a specific type of property? What properties are exempt from property taxation? How does one value properties that are partially taxable and partially exempt, such as a structure that includes a hospital (exempt) and doctors’ offices (taxable).
Tax exemptions for charitable institutions are often expressed in legislative language reflecting an earlier and far starker division between commercial and nonprofit enterprises, such as hospitals. Retirement communities that require significant initial and continuing payments may not fit the pattern of a “home for the aged,” just as a traditionally exempt YMCA may seem a commercial competitor to a neighboring health club. The continuing challenge of distinguishing exempt and taxable property takes on new forms over time.
Many similar issues of statutory interpretation and the application of legal analysis to new factual situations have been the subject of ongoing examination at the annual conference.
In addition to valuation questions of this sort, the conference agenda includes a session on developments concerning state income and sales taxes, and presentations on such topics as judicial writing, ethical issues, and the effect of business cycles on property markets. Judges serving on appellate courts and state supreme courts have also contributed their perspectives on tax decisions that reach them on appeal.
Times of economic stress also require special attention to case management, as property tax appeals increase when market values fall. Courts require flexibility and excellent procedures to offer taxpayers accessible, timely determinations under these circumstances, particularly since economic downturns usually bring reductions in state budgets, and the need to do more with less.
In times of rapidly rising prices, taxpayers are often pleased to see an assessment figure that has not kept pace with market values. In downturns, taxpayers are more likely to be disturbed if bills reflect an earlier assessment date when prices were higher. The Minnesota Tax Court, for example, saw a 50 percent rise in appeals from 2,954 in 2008 to 4,760 in 2009 (through November). The state’s Chief Judge George Perez, the current chair of the National Conference of State Tax Judges, explained, “There’s a direct inverse relationship between Tax Court filings and the economy. When the economy is down, numbers are up. When the economy is up and healthy, the numbers begin to drop.”
Evidence of Impact
Strong ties have been formed among the members of tax courts and tribunals from over 30 states and the cities of New York and Chicago who have participated in the judges’ conference. These connections, as much as the technical material covered at the conference, have provided a means of improving the judicial process. Many participants have observed that the conference has produced a positive impact on the quality of tax decisions.
Glenn Newman, president of the New York City Tax Commission and Tax Appeals Tribunal, says, “It is remarkable how many issues cut across state lines. The issues we all face can be discussed and analyzed, helping all participants focus and come to a clearer understanding.”
Michelle Robert, counsel to the Maine State Board of Property Tax Review, states, “This is a wonderful conference that offers attendees a forum for exchange of ideas and viewpoints in this are of the law that is truly not otherwise available.”
Chief Judge George Perez of the Minnesota Tax Court, the current conference chair, sums up these perspectives: “It’s the best seminar given for tax judges and tax officials.”
The conference’s contribution to improved tax policy is a tribute to the foresight of those who gathered at Moley House 30 years ago, and the current participants who are eager to carry that benefit to future tax judges as well.
“Through informal as well as formal discussions at the annual meetings, and frequent phone calls during the rest of the year, judges have been able to tap the knowledge, experience, and intelligence of their colleagues all over the nation. The National Conference has provided an introduction and a phone number that have helped many of its members make a better decision concerning issues that at an earlier point seemed intractable. These personal connections may be one of the Lincoln Institute’s greatest contributions to the improvement of tax policy through the improvement of state and local tax adjudication.”
—Joseph C. Small
About the Authors
Joseph C. Small is the retired presiding judge of the Tax Court of New Jersey and a former chair of the National Conference of State Tax Judges.
Joan Youngman is an attorney and senior fellow and director of the Department of Valuation and Taxation at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
SHARE
Most jurisdictions require residential assessments to be proportional to market value, but in practice assessment ratios—assessed value divided by sale price—are often lower for high-priced than low-priced properties. This tendency for assessment ratios to fall as sales prices rise is termed regressivity, because it means that property taxes are a higher percentage of property value for lower-priced properties. Regressive assessments have been identified in many jurisdictions and times (such as Cornia and Slade 2005; McMillen and Weber 2008; and Plummer 2010).
Assessment regressivity is an important issue because it has the potential to undermine support for a property tax system. Consider a simple system in which taxes are 1 percent of a home’s assessed value, with no exemptions or deductions. For example, a $100,000 home should have a $1,000 tax bill, and a $1 million home a $10,000 tax bill. However, it is not uncommon to find that a $1 million home is actually assessed at $800,000 or $900,000, resulting in effective tax rates of 0.8 or 0.9 percent rather than the statutory 1 percent.
Having lower-than-prescribed assessment rates for some high-priced properties may result in greater variability in assessments within price groups. One owner of a high-priced home may accept a $1 million assessment as an accurate measure of market value, while another owner may appeal and win a lower assessment. Different tax bills for identical properties can cause taxpayer resistance and resentment.
The Assessment Process in Illinois
I have analyzed data from two counties in the Chicago metropolitan area that provide quite different perspectives on assessment regressivity. In suburban DuPage County, assessment ratios decline uniformly with sales prices and there is no marked difference in the degree of variability in assessments across the range of sales prices. In the City of Chicago, which is part of Cook County, the degree of variability in assessment ratios is greater than the degree of regressivity. Notably, assessment ratios in Chicago are highly variable at low and very high sales prices, while not varying greatly with mid-range sales prices.
Illinois has a simple flat-rate property tax, but the homestead exemption produces a degree of progressivity. This exemption is generally a flat amount that does not vary by price, although Cook County has an “alternative general homestead exemption” that can make the exemption higher in areas with rapid price appreciation. The basic homestead exemption is designed to produce much lower effective tax rates for low-priced properties—where the exemption is often high relative to market value.
Assessment practices in DuPage County are similar to those in all but one of the 102 counties in Illinois, where properties are assessed on a four-year cycle at 33 percent of market value. In DuPage County, properties were most recently assessed in 2007 and new assessments will be established in 2011. Cook County alone has a classified system with varying statutory assessment rates. Prior to 2009, the statutory rates were 16 percent for residential properties, 38 percent for commercial, and 36 percent for industrial, although actual assessment rates were much lower. In 2009, the statutory rates were “recalibrated” to 10 percent for residential and 25 percent for commercial and industrial properties. Cook County assesses its properties on a rotating, three-year cycle. The City of Chicago was last reassessed in 2009, and all city properties will be reassessed again in 2012. Properties in the north suburban part of Cook County were reassessed in 2010, and south suburban properties will be reassessed in 2011.
Traditional Measures of Regressivity
The importance of assessment regressivity has led the International Association of Assessment Officers (IAAO 2007) to recommend that an analysis of regressivity be included as part of any study of assessment accuracy. One common procedure recommended by the IAAO to evaluate assessment regressivity is a descriptive statistic, the price-related differential (PRD), which is the ratio of the simple mean assessment ratio to a comparable statistic that places more weight on higher-priced properties. Typically this ratio is greater than one, which implies that higher-priced properties have lower average assessment ratios than lower-priced homes.
Table 1 presents traditional IAAO measures of residential assessment performance for the most recent reassessment year for which I have data—2006 in Chicago and 1999 in DuPage County. The data on sales prices and assessed values come from the Illinois Department of Revenue, which is responsible for monitoring assessment performance for all counties in the state. I focus on Chicago rather than all of Cook County to keep the sample size more manageable, to focus on a single assessment year, and to avoid combining the county’s three assessment districts.
Chicago’s average assessment rate (mean) of 9.4 percent differs significantly from the statutory value of 16 percent. In DuPage County, the average assessment rate of 29.8 percent is much closer to the statutory 33 percent rate, and it would likely be even closer if the timing of the sales prices and assessment origination dates were closer. The value-weighted mean is calculated by weighting each observation by its sale price. The finding that the value-weighted mean is less than the arithmetic mean implies that higher-priced properties tend to have lower than average assessment ratios in both counties.
The price-related differential (PRD), which is the ratio of the value-weighted mean to the arithmetic mean, formalizes this measure. IAAO standards call for the PRD to be no higher than 1.03; by this standard, DuPage County’s degree of regressivity is acceptable while Chicago’s is not. The coefficient of dispersion (COD) is the traditional measure of assessment variability. By IAAO standards for residential properties, the COD should not exceed 15. Again, Chicago’s COD indicates excessive variability while DuPage County’s degree of variability is within IAAO’s acceptable range.
Statistical Analysis of Regressivity
A second IAAO-recommended procedure to measure regressivity is a statistical regression of a sample of assessment ratios on sales prices, which typically produces a negative coefficient for the price variable, i.e., a downward sloping line. This type of analysis provides estimates of the conditional expectation of the assessment ratio for any given sale price. Although several approaches exist in the literature, the basic idea is to estimate a function that produces a simple relationship between sales prices and assessment ratios. If the function implies that assessment ratios decline with sales prices, the assessment pattern is said to be regressive.
Figure 1 shows the estimated functions when assessment ratios are regressed on sales prices using data from Chicago and DuPage County. The straight lines are simple linear regressions. The curved lines are a nonlinear estimation procedure—a locally weighted regression technique that estimates a series of models at various target values, placing more weight on values closer to the target points. For example, to estimate a regression with a target point of $100,000, one might use only observations with sales prices between $75,000 and $125,000, with more weight placed on sales prices closer to $100,000.
The linear and locally weighted regression estimates are much more discrepant for Chicago’s data set than for DuPage County’s. While both approaches indicate that assessment ratios fall with sales prices, the nonlinear procedure indicates that expected assessment ratios are extremely high in Chicago at very low sales prices—but still below the statutory rate of 16 percent.
The regression lines imply precise relationships, but they do not address differences in the degree of variability at different sales prices. It may be that both unusually high and unusually low prices are simply hard to assess accurately. If so, assessment ratios could have high variances at both low and high sales prices while being tightly centered on statutory rates near the mean sale price. Neither the traditional PRD statistic nor standard regression procedures are well-suited for analyzing a situation where the accuracy of the assessment process varies with sales prices.
Quantile Regressions Using Simulated Data
Another statistical procedure, quantile regression, provides much more information on the relationship between assessment ratios and sales prices by showing how the full distribution of ratios varies by price. The easiest way to understand quantile regression is to imagine two data sets, A and B, where both have 10,000 observations. Each observation represents a sale price and assessment ratio pair, but sales prices are constrained to integers between 1 and 10 (figure 2).
In constructing data set A, a sale price is assigned, and then an assessment ratio is drawn from a normal distribution with a mean (and median) of 0.33 (the statutory rate in DuPage County). Data set A then matches the assumptions of a classical regression model, where the variance of the assessment ratios is constant across all values of sales prices. In constructing data set B, however, the variance of the assigned assessment ratio is higher for lower sale price levels, but the mean is constant and equals 0.33 at each price.
In both data sets the mean is equivalent to the estimated linear regressions in this case, indicating no relationship between sale price and assessment ratio. If these regressions were estimated using real data, they would be interpreted as indicating that assessment ratios are proportional to sales prices, i.e., assessments are neither regressive nor progressive. Despite this finding, figure 2 clearly shows that in data set B assessments converge on the statutory 33 percent rate at high sales prices, whereas homes with low sales prices run the risk of having extremely high assessment rates.
Quantile regression estimates reveal the differences between data sets A and B in the degree of assessment ratio variability, and this approach can be estimated at any target value of the assessment ratio distribution. For example, since the 10 percent and 90 percent quantile lines are converging as sales prices increase, the quantile regression reveals what standard regression procedures do not—low sales prices have highly variable assessments and high sales prices have more precise assessments.
Quantile Regressions for the City of Chicago and DuPage County
In practice, linear regression, locally weighted regression, and a linear version of quantile regression all proved too restrictive to represent accurately the relationship between assessment ratios and sales prices in Chicago and DuPage County, especially for extremely low and extremely high sales prices. Instead, a nonlinear version of quantile regression provides the most accurate representation of the underlying relationship.
Figure 3 shows the results of nonlinear versions of the quantile regressions, which can be estimated at a series of target points, with more weight given to observations that are near the targets. From bottom to top, the graphs show the estimated 10, 25, 50, 75, and 90 percent quantile regression lines.
Chicago’s results suggest that assessment ratios are relatively high at all quantiles for quite low prices, but the high variability is evident in the large spread between the 10 and 90 percent quantile lines. However, as the sale price increases from about $250,000 to nearly $800,000, the regression lines are close to horizontal. The variability is also low in this range. The quantile lines begin to have a downward slope again for prices above $800,000, with a moderate increase in the variance. Thus, the Chicago results suggest that the standard analysis of regressivity is misleading in that most of the regressivity is concentrated at low sales prices where the variance is also quite high.
In contrast, DuPage County has relatively high assessment ratios and lower variances in the $100,000–$200,000 range of prices where most sales took place in 1999. Assessment ratios decline with sale price for all prices beyond about $100,000, while the variance is increasing. The pattern of results for DuPage County is closer to what is implicitly assumed in a standard regression analysis of assessment regressivity.
Assessment Ratios Distributions at Alternative Sales Prices
An alternative to quantile regression is to examine the actual distribution of assessment ratios at a variety of different target values for sales prices to see how assessment ratios vary at given sales prices. Since most of the interesting patterns occur at low sales prices, figure 4 shows estimated conditional density functions for sales prices ranging from $50,000 to $200,000. The density function for Chicago has a huge variance at a sale price of $50,000. As the price increases to $100,000, $150,000, and finally $200,000, the density function moves to the left, meaning that lower assessment ratios become more common—an indication of regressivity. The distribution is also much more tightly clustered around the mean value of 9–10 percent, which indicates that the variance is reduced substantially.
In the contrasting case of DuPage County, the conditional density functions simply shift to the left as the target sale price increases with no pronounced change in variance. This parallel leftward shift of the conditional density function shows what would be predicted by a classic regression analysis of a regressive assessment system.
Implications for Property Taxes
Assessment regressivity has important implications for individual tax bills, as exemplified in a simplified analysis of residential taxes in Cook County. Though not a literal representation of the county’s tax system, the analysis is a close approximation. The starting point for table 2 is the estimated market value, which we assume to be accurate. Although the statutory assessment rate in Cook County was 16 percent prior to 2009, I use an assessment rate of 10 percent because it is closer to the actual rate and it matches the recent recalibration. Thus, the proposed assessed valuation for the property is $10,000.
However, Illinois also requires that assessments across the state must average 33 percent of market value. If assessments average less than 33 percent—as is mathematically a near certainty under Cook County’s classification system—the Department of Revenue calculates an equalization factor by which all assessments are multiplied. Using a representative value of 2.7 for the multiplier in table 2, the $10,000 assessment turns into an adjusted equalized assessment value of $27,000. Finally, the standard homestead exemption of $5,500 (again, a representative value) is subtracted to produce the base for the homeowner’s property tax bill. Thus, the sample tax rate of 10 percent and the adjusted equalized assessed value of $21,500 produce a tax bill of $2,150.
Table 3 compares house values and property tax rates under the assumption that assessments are regressive and are more variable for $100,000 houses than for $500,000 houses. Due to the homestead exemption, the property tax is somewhat progressive even when assessments are proportional to market value. Thus, a $100,000 house that is accurately assessed at 10 percent of market value ($10,000) ends up with a tax bill of $2,150 or an effective tax rate of 2.15 percent, while a $500,000 house that is assessed correctly at $50,000 has a tax bill of $12,950, or 2.59 percent of market value.
But, suppose that assessment rates for $100,000 homes actually range from 9 to 14 percent, while the range for $500,000 homes is only 8 to 12 percent. In this case, the progressivity of the homestead exemption can be reversed completely. Owners of low-priced homes who are “unfortunate” in receiving high assessments end up with effective tax rates of 3.23 percent, which is much higher than the average 10 percent value for owners of $500,000 homes, and is even higher than the 3.13 percent tax rate paid by owners of high-priced homes assessed at 12 percent.
Moreover, actual tax payments vary significantly for otherwise identical homes—from $1,800 to $3,230 for $100,000 houses and from $10,250 to $15,650 for $500,000 homes. In other words, a homeowner may receive a tax bill that is nearly 80 percent higher than the neighboring house even if both have a market value of $100,000.
Conclusion
Because assessment accuracy is the key to an equitable property tax, statistical measures of regressivity are essential tools for evaluating property valuation systems. Standard measures of regressivity can present an incomplete or even misleading picture of the range of assessment ratios in a jurisdiction. Newer analytic tools such as quantile regression can improve our understanding of the distribution of tax burdens and in this way help improve assessment equity.
Note: The statistical tools used in this article are included in a contributed extension package for the statistical program R. The package (aratio) is designed to be accessible to people who have limited knowledge of the R program but are familiar with other statistical software packages. Both R and aratio can be downloaded at no charge from www.r-project.org.
About the Author
Daniel P. McMillen is a professor at the Institute of Government and Public Affairs and in the Department of Economics at the University of Illinois. He is also a visiting fellow of the Lincoln Institute’s Department of Valuation and Taxation in 2010–2011.
References
Cleveland, William S., and Susan J. Devlin. 1988. Locally weighted regression: An approach to regression analysis by local fitting. Journal of the American Statistical Association 83(403, September): 596–610.
Cornia, Gary C., and Barrett A. Slade. 2005. Property taxation of multifamily housing: An empirical analysis of vertical and horizontal equity. Journal of Real Estate Research 27(1, (January/March): 17–46.
International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO). 2007. Standard on ratio studies. Kansas City, MO: IAAO.
McMillen, Daniel P., and Rachel Weber. 2008. Thin markets and property tax inequities: A multinomial logit approach. National Tax Journal 61(4, December): 653–671.
Plummer, Elizabeth. 2010. The effect of land value ratio on property tax protests and the effects of protests on assessment uniformity. Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Even as the economy begins to recover from the greatest recession since the 1930s, the worst may be yet to come for state and local governments because their fiscal situations typically lag the general economy by two to three years. State budget deficits for FY2010 totaled more than 25 percent of general fund budgets—the largest budget gaps on record.
Making matters worse is the impending “stimulus cliff,” which arises because most of the roughly $135 billion in federal stimulus aid to state governments and school districts was used to help close state budget gaps in FY2010, leaving a small fraction of the aid for FY2011 (Lav, Johnson, and McNichol 2010). Even before the current recession, states faced substantial structural deficits. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (2007, 1) predicted state and local governments would face “large and growing fiscal challenges” within a few years time, and continuing through 2050.
These grim forecasts for state and local budgets have led some analysts and policy makers to call for reducing the size of state government, consolidating local governments, restructuring tax systems, and even changing state constitutions. According to Rob Gurwitt (2010, 18) of Governing magazine, the “fundamental assumptions about how state government operates need rewiring.”
Given the likelihood of a long-term state and local government fiscal crisis, property tax relief is an important state government function that is now more critical than ever. This article argues that most efforts to provide property tax relief, such as assessment limits and homestead exemptions, are inefficient and create substantial unintended consequences. Circuit breaker programs—a property tax relief mechanism first developed in the 1960s—deserve renewed attention in an era of streamlined state government because they target aid to those who need it most.
Alternative Approaches to Property Tax Relief
The property tax accounts for the largest share of own-source revenues for local governments, and is particularly suitable for funding local services for at least two reasons. First, it is a stable revenue source: property tax revenues do not fall dramatically during recessions as income tax and sales tax collections generally do. Second, property taxes are imposed on an immobile tax base: while people may have the option to buy the same goods in a nearby town with lower sales taxes, or move across state lines for lower incomes taxes, they cannot move their land across city lines to seek lower property taxes.
The property tax is not without problems, however. Chief among them are the disparities in property values across communities, an inexact relationship to taxpayers’ ability to pay, and the long-standing unpopularity of the tax. Its revenue importance means that improvement rather than elimination is the best way to address these problems.
Property tax relief can be provided in many ways, some of which are more effective and equitable than others. Wealth disparities among communities make locally funded property tax relief programs inherently problematic. Funding property tax relief at the state level is a better option, since communities with large concentrations of needy taxpayers are unlikely to have the resources to fund local-option tax relief programs. State funding also eliminates inequities in property tax relief among communities.
Assessment caps are used as a property tax relief measure in 20 states, and other states regularly examine proposals to employ such measures. A recent comprehensive study on assessment limits found, however, that “30 years of experience suggests that these limits are among the least effective, least equitable, and least efficient strategies available for providing property tax relief” (Haveman and Sexton 2008, 37). Assessment caps provide the greatest tax reductions to homeowners whose property values have increased the most. Even though such gains in housing wealth are not a liquid asset, tax relief should not be structured to provide the greatest benefit to those with the greatest increase in wealth.
Assessment limits also create horizontal inequities in cases where two homeowners with identical incomes and homes in the same community face dramatically different property tax bills solely because one owner has lived in the home longer. Fixed-dollar homestead exemptions are better, but still do a poor job of targeting homeowners with the highest property tax burdens, because they provide the same dollar value of property tax relief to all homeowners facing a particular tax rate, regardless of their income.
Residential property tax relief programs across the United States are seldom targeted by income—the best measure of a household’s ability to pay taxes. Of the 216 residential property tax relief programs in effect in 2006, only 81 took income into account when setting benefits by using an income ceiling, and only 37 programs set tax relief benefits that varied by income (Significant Features of the Property Tax 2010). Given the fiscal crisis, states should consider replacing untargeted property tax relief with circuit breaker programs that can provide relief to more households in need, without spending more money.
The Case for the Property Tax Circuit Breaker
When applied to property tax relief, the term circuit breaker is used to describe programs that provide benefits directly to taxpayers, with benefits increasing as claimants’ incomes decline. As an electrical circuit breaker stops the flow of electrical current to protect a circuit from overload, a property tax circuit breaker is a policy mechanism designed to stop property taxes from exceeding a claimant’s ability to pay, protecting the taxpayer from property tax overload.
A clear definition is critical since most states with true circuit breaker programs do not use that term to describe them. For example, Maine calls its circuit breaker program the Maine Property Tax and Rent Refund Program. Meanwhile, some states use the term to refer to property tax relief programs in which relief does not vary with income. In Indiana, a program is called a circuit breaker even though the program ties relief to property value, not to income.
Over the last 40 years, two-thirds of the states and the District of Columbia have adopted state-funded circuit breaker programs (see figure 1). Each of these programs satisfies the circuit breaker definition described above. However, the design of these programs, and consequently their effectiveness, varies considerably. Properly designed circuit breakers can target property tax relief more precisely and with less expense than broad-based mechanisms such as homestead exemptions and assessment caps.
Recommendations for a Circuit Breaker Program
We offer seven recommendations designed to obtain maximum benefit when creating or reforming a circuit breaker program. The New York case study presents the efforts of one state trying to reform its circuit breaker program (box 1).
Box 1: New York’s Effort to Provide Targeted Property Tax Relief
Policy makers in New York state are considering adopting a new, expanded circuit breaker program to provide more targeted property tax relief because the existing circuit breaker program does not provide adequate assistance. It currently excludes households with incomes above $18,000, and provides an average annual benefit of only $109 per claimant (Bowman et al. 2009).
The state’s primary means of providing direct property tax relief to households is the School Tax Relief program (STAR), which has three components. Basic STAR is available to all taxpayers on their primary residence, and exempts the first $30,000 in property value from school district taxes, with adjustments for municipalities where assessed values diverge from market values and for downstate counties with high real estate prices. Enhanced STAR exempts a higher value, and is available only to homeowners over age 65 with limited incomes. Middle Class STAR provided a rebate check that depended on households’ income and their other STAR benefits, but was repealed in 2009 for 2009–2010 and subsequent fiscal years.
STAR is an expensive program—the three property tax components cost about $3.9 billion in 2008–2009. However, because benefits are spread so widely, many homeowners still face excessive property tax burdens. According to the 2006 American Community Survey, even after accounting for reductions under the Basic and Enhanced STAR programs, 20.1 percent of New York homeowners paid more than 10 percent of their income in property taxes, while 52.6 percent paid less than 5 percent. By providing such generous relief to the second group, the state is not able to provide enough for the first. Also, by providing larger exemptions for counties with high house prices, STAR largely subsidizes households in property-wealthy communities, which makes the state’s property tax system more regressive (Duncombe and Yinger 2001).
To provide more targeted relief, several proposals have been introduced to establish a new circuit breaker program. During the 2005–2006 legislative session, Assemblywoman Sandy Galef and Senator Betty Little sponsored a plan with many desirable features: a multiple-threshold formula to make the distribution of tax relief more progressive; an income ceiling high enough to include all middle-income households; and a copayment requirement to discourage excessive spending by local governments. The cost would have been limited by making homeowners choose either circuit breaker benefits or Middle Class STAR.
The Omnibus Consortium put forward a proposal similar to the Galef–Little plan, but with two improvements. First, it includes renters. Second, it uses a graduated structure for the income brackets, so that a small income increase that moves a claimant from one bracket to the next does not result in a much larger decrease in circuit breaker benefits.
The consortium’s proposal was introduced in spring 2009 by Senator Liz Krueger and Assemblyman Steve Englebright; it is cosponsored by Galef, Little, and many other legislators. Once fully implemented this plan is estimated to cost $2.3 billion annually, which is 65 percent less than the cost of the 2008–2009 STAR property tax programs, even though the new plan would provide much more generous relief to households facing the largest property tax burdens.
Plans to pay for the circuit breaker have been clouded by the state’s repeal of the Middle Class STAR rebates in response to the 2009–2010 budget deficit. Governor David Paterson has also proposed a circuit breaker plan, which would tie circuit breaker benefits to a spending cap for state government. Annual spending growth would be restricted to inflation growth. When revenues exceed this limit, the surplus would be returned to homeowners via a circuit breaker. While this plan may seem attractive, it would accentuate budget cycles and result in unpredictable year-to-year fluctuations in tax relief for homeowners.
Given the state’s fiscal crisis, creating a new circuit breaker program now seems more difficult than when the Galef–Little bill was being actively debated in the 2006–2008 period. Still, it is a positive sign that many legislators and the governor are all advancing targeted and cost-effective circuit breaker proposals, and have repealed the expensive and untargeted Middle Class STAR program.
Provide property tax relief to owners and renters of all ages. Currently, more than two-thirds of state circuit breakers do not cover nonelderly households, and a quarter of programs do not cover renters. Restricting eligibility to seniors is based on the false assumption that age is a good proxy for property tax burden. In fact, while the elderly have higher property tax burdens on average, Census data show elderly and nonelderly homeowners both devote about 35 percent of their incomes to all home ownership costs combined (Bowman et al. 2009, 11).
Furthermore, circuit breakers eliminate the need to use age as a rough proxy for property tax burdens since they target relief based on each household’s income and property tax liability. States should also provide circuit breaker benefits for renters, because they pay property taxes indirectly as part of their rent and they generally have lower incomes than homeowners. States that cover renters typically estimate renter property tax payments by specifying a percentage of rent equivalent to property taxes, most commonly 20 percent.
Avoid low income ceilings and restrictions on maximum benefits.
Many circuit breakers fail to provide meaningful tax relief because they have low income ceilings that exclude middle-income households, or low limits on maximum benefits that result in inadequate relief. For example, Oklahoma’s circuit breaker program restricts eligibility to claimants with incomes below $12,000 and caps relief at $200. In 2008, almost three-quarters of state circuit breaker programs had income ceilings below the national median household income of $50,223. In the current fiscal crisis, states should take care to set appropriate limits to restrain the cost of circuit breaker programs without rendering these programs ineffective.
Use a multiple-threshold circuit breaker formula.
States use three basic types of circuit breaker formulas: threshold, sliding-scale, and quasi circuit breakers. Threshold circuit breakers are the only type that bases tax relief directly on property tax burdens—that is, the percentage of income spent on property taxes. Using multiple thresholds will result in a more progressive distribution of benefits.
Threshold formulas provide a benefit for the portion of a claimant’s property tax bill that exceeds set percentages of income. For example, the Massachusetts circuit breaker, which is limited to taxpayers over age 65, uses a 10 percent single-threshold formula. The taxpayer is responsible for the entire tax bill up to 10 percent of household income, while the circuit breaker benefit offsets the tax bill above this threshold, up to a maximum benefit of $960.
Multiple-threshold formulas set multiple threshold percentages that increase from the lowest income bracket to the highest, with these thresholds usually applied incrementally like a graduated income tax. Maryland uses four threshold percentages: the circuit breaker benefit offsets any property tax liability above 0 percent of income for the first $8,000 of income, above 4 percent for the next $4,000 of income, above 6.5 percent for the next $4,000 of income, and above 9 percent for income of $16,001–$60,000.
Sliding-scale formulas reduce property taxes by a set percentage for each income bracket, with lower relief percentages for higher income brackets. All claimants in a given income bracket receive the same percentage of relief regardless of their property tax bill.
Quasi circuit breakers use multiple income brackets to target benefits to low-income households; benefits are determined without reference to a claimant’s property tax bill, except that they cannot exceed the actual property tax paid. A few states use hybrid circuit breakers that employ elements of all three types of formulas.
Ensure reliable state funding.
Even generous circuit breakers can become ineffective without reliable state funding. Circuit breaker benefits should be treated as an entitlement, rather than relying on budget appropriations that can result in pro-rated benefits (as in Iowa), unpredictable annual changes in formulas (as in New Jersey), or elimination of benefits in some years (as in California). Unpredictable fluctuations in circuit breaker benefits are difficult for taxpayers to manage and can have potentially dire consequences on household budgets.
Given the disparities in property wealth across municipalities, it is important for circuit breakers to be funded by the state, rather than at the option of local governments. Because of differences in program design and participation levels, the costs to state governments of existing circuit breaker programs vary considerably, ranging from .004 percent to 6.3 percent of property tax collections among 14 states where program cost data are readily available (Bowman et al. 2009, 20).
Use copayment requirements with threshold circuit breakers.
States that use threshold formulas should relieve only a portion of property taxes exceeding the threshold. The remaining difference between the taxes exceeding the threshold and the circuit breaker benefit may be considered a copayment. Copayment requirements are important for avoiding inefficient increases in local spending. If a circuit breaker shields taxpayers from 100 percent of any property tax increase, they have no incentive to scrutinize increased local spending since they will benefit from better public services without any increase to their tax bill.
Deliver circuit breaker benefits in a timely and visible way.
States use three methods of distributing circuit breaker benefits: rebate checks, income tax credits, and property tax credits or exemptions. A property tax credit reduces the tax bill based on a property’s full assessed value, while an exemption reduces a property’s assessed value.
Providing benefits through a property tax credit or exemption has two key advantages over rebate checks or income tax credits. First, taxpayers receive an immediate reduction in their property tax bills instead of facing a delay between the date they pay their property taxes and the date their circuit breaker application can be processed. Second, taxpayers observe the benefit as property tax relief instead of mistaking an income tax credit for income tax relief. Since renters do not pay property taxes directly, their circuit breaker benefits can be dispersed through a rebate check.
Use a public outreach campaign.
Low participation is a common problem among existing circuit breaker programs. Taxpayers will not apply for benefits if they are not aware of the program, or if they do not believe they qualify for benefits. To increase awareness and participation, states may promote programs through print advertising, broadcast media, and/or speaking tours. The Internet is a particularly useful and low-cost tool for circulating up-to-date program details including deadlines, contact information, printable claim forms, or online applications. Some states are able to enlist the help of nonprofit organizations in promoting participation if the group views the circuit breaker program as supporting its mission. For example, the Gerontology Institute at the University of Massachusetts promotes that state’s program as part of its efforts on behalf of the elderly.
Conclusion
The current fiscal crisis may usher in a new era for state governments under intense pressure to redesign programs to “do more with less.” Property tax relief is a core function of state governments, and it can be made more fair and cost-effective by using a circuit breaker program. This policy tool is designed to stop the property tax from exceeding a taxpayer’s ability to pay by targeting tax relief to those who need it most.
A majority of the states currently employ circuit breakers, but most programs fall short of ideal leaving ample room for improvement. New York’s poorly targeted property tax relief system, for example, could be replaced with an expanded circuit breaker that provides more help to taxpayers overburdened by the property tax, but costs less than the current program. Circuit breaker programs can also help strengthen the property tax itself as a mainstay of local government finance.
About the Authors
Daphne A. Kenyon is principal of D.A. Kenyon & Associates, a public policy consulting firm in New Hampshire, and a visiting fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Adam H. Langley is a research analyst at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and a graduate student in economics at Boston University.
Bethany P. Paquin is a research assistant for D. A. Kenyon & Associates and the Lincoln Institute.
The authors thank Frank Mauro of the Fiscal Policy Institute in New York State and Joan Youngman of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy for helpful information and comments on previous drafts.
References
Bowman, John H., Daphne A. Kenyon, Adam Langley, and Bethany P. Paquin. 2009. Property tax circuit breakers: Fair and cost-effective relief for taxpayers. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Duncombe, William and John Yinger. 2001. Alternative paths to property tax relief. In Property taxation and local government finance, Wallace E. Oates, ed., 243–294. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Gurwitt, Rob. 2010. Broke and broken. Governing 23 (4): 18-23.
Haveman, Mark and Terri A. Sexton. 2008. Property tax assessment limits: Lessons from thirty years of experience. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Lav, Iris J., Nicholas Johnson, and Elizabeth McNichol. 2010. Additional federal fiscal relief needed to help states address recession’s impact. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, January 28. www.cbpp.org
Omnibus Consortium. 2010. Summary of Omnibus Bill Circuit Breaker. http://omnibustaxsolution.org/overview.html
Significant Features of the Property Tax. 2010. Residential property tax relief programs. www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/significant-features-property-tax/Report_ResidentialRelief.aspx
U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2007. State and local governments: Persistent fiscal challenges will likely emerge within the next decade. July 18. GAO-07-1080SP.
